Re: Starfighters & Co.
On 25/10/07, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: >I live on the flight path of the RAF memorial flight in its travels up >and down the coutry to airshows. A couple of times every summer I drop >whatever it is I am doing and rush outside to watch the Lancaster, a >Spitfire and a Hurricane making their way up or down the country. Once, >at work, I went outside so quickly that two colleagues followed me >thinking that there was a fire.. Twice this year we had a Spit practising his display over Brize Norton :-))) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
From: Mark Roberts > John Sessoms wrote: > >> >Actually, the 22,000 lb bomb did weigh 22,000 lb. > > I think the thread has been officially beaten to death when someone has > to point something like this out! > > > > Heh heh. My daddy used to say, "Drive it into the ground and bark over the hole." -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
mike wilson wrote: >More likely due to the original organisation's recreation of the >bombing of Hiroshima. I don't think that went down very well >anywhere outside of a few redneck crania. Anything like the Batley Townswomen's Guild's recreation of the battle of Pearl Harbor? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMqSmiC_xHg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
frank theriault wrote: > On 10/24/07, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>They have the throttles pretty much wide open during take-off, so all >>you need to do is get to one of the airshows where a B-17 will be flying. > > > I guess my point was that with so few of them flying, it might be > difficult to get to one of their airshows. As Adam mentioned earlier, > we in Toronto are lucky, because one of only (I think) two flying > Lancs operates out of Hamilton, about 30 miles from Toronto. It's > seen flying over our city several times a year. > > It's so distinctive sounding, one can identify it by ear, without > actually seeing it... I live on the flight path of the RAF memorial flight in its travels up and down the coutry to airshows. A couple of times every summer I drop whatever it is I am doing and rush outside to watch the Lancaster, a Spitfire and a Hurricane making their way up or down the country. Once, at work, I went outside so quickly that two colleagues followed me thinking that there was a fire.. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
frank theriault wrote: > On 10/24/07, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Well, the B-25 only had 28 cylinders, while the Lancaster had 48. But it >>always >>seemed that the radials sort of rumbled while the v-12's sort of snarled. The >>one that always sent shivers up my spine was the Beech 18 (C-45) throttled >>back >>with the 9 cyl P&W R-985 engines slightly out of sync. > > > I'd have loved to have heard a B17 at full throttle. Chances of that > are pretty slim these days... If you ever do manage to get yourself over here, make sure it is during a Duxford Warbirds event. That will sort you out, usually. > > BTW, I was wrong about the B25 being the only multi-engined radial > I've ever heard. I've heard (and flown on!) a DC3. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
John Sessoms wrote: > From: "P. J. Alling" > > >>They've changed their name to the Commemorative Air Force, >>(Confederate is so Politically Incorrect). > > > > Might have something to do with so many of them old war-birds being > owned by people who don't owe allegiance to the old confederacy. > More likely due to the original organisation's recreation of the bombing of Hiroshima. I don't think that went down very well anywhere outside of a few redneck crania. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
On 10/24/07, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > They have the throttles pretty much wide open during take-off, so all > you need to do is get to one of the airshows where a B-17 will be flying. I guess my point was that with so few of them flying, it might be difficult to get to one of their airshows. As Adam mentioned earlier, we in Toronto are lucky, because one of only (I think) two flying Lancs operates out of Hamilton, about 30 miles from Toronto. It's seen flying over our city several times a year. It's so distinctive sounding, one can identify it by ear, without actually seeing it... cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
John Sessoms wrote: >Actually, the 22,000 lb bomb did weigh 22,000 lb. I think the thread has been officially beaten to death when someone has to point something like this out! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
B-17G Lancaster Max takeoff wt: 65,500 68,000 lbs Wt empty: 34,000 36,900 lbs Delta 31,500 31,100 lbs Max Fuel: 2,7802,481 gallons 17,375 15,509 lbs Range: 1,850 1,660 miles @ Bomb Load: 8,000 14,000lbs Aparent Consumption0.231 0.119 miles/lb Note: Service altitude and plays large part. Max bomb load: 17,600 14,000lbs Note: B-17G Requires external racks Crew 13 7 Crew 2,405 1,295 lbs Ammo 455 300 lbs Max Speed: 300 287 mph @ Altitude: 30,000 12,000 ft Max Continuous: 263 Unk mph 274 Unk kph Cruse Speed170 200 mph Service Ceiling:35,600 24,500 ft I make no judgements concerning the relative worthiness of these two great warbirds. Regards, Bob... "Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection." -Jean Luc Godard - Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:36 PM Subject: Re: Starfighters & Co. > Which is correct, but the B-17 didn't either, it's range was quite > restricted with an 8,000lb load. > > Interestingly, the RAF used stripped B-24's in the BMI theater, and > carried a 12,000lb load some 1,400 miles in one case. > > Note of course that the return fuel numbers are also much smaller, since > you're short all those bombs, making your fuel numbers much less. And > operational ranges are two-way typically. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
From: "John Sessoms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Why? They didn't operate under the same conditions. No. Regards, Bob... "Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection." -Jean Luc Godard - Original Message - From: "John Sessoms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: "Bob Blakely" > >> From: http://www.warbirdalley.com/ >> >> B-17G, 17,600 pounds of bombs. > > Lancaster Mk I, Fourteen 1,000 pound bombs. > > B-24, 12,800 lb. maximum bomb load >> >> Bomb load could be traded for ceiling and/or range with all these. >> For example, B-17 typically flew with 6000 pounds of bombs to gain >> range and altitude. On a clear day, the B-17 could be quite accurate >> from 30,000 ft. >> >> Gotta compare them operating under the same conditions. > > > Why? They didn't operate under the same conditions. > > The Brits mostly flew the Lancaster on medium altitude night raids and > the Yanks flew the B-17 as a high altitude day bomber. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 05:39:36PM -0400, frank theriault wrote: > On 10/24/07, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, the B-25 only had 28 cylinders, while the Lancaster had 48. But it > > always > > seemed that the radials sort of rumbled while the v-12's sort of snarled. > > The > > one that always sent shivers up my spine was the Beech 18 (C-45) throttled > > back > > with the 9 cyl P&W R-985 engines slightly out of sync. > > I'd have loved to have heard a B17 at full throttle. Chances of that > are pretty slim these days... They have the throttles pretty much wide open during take-off, so all you need to do is get to one of the airshows where a B-17 will be flying. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
From: graywolf > Ya, but you guys have to remember you are talking two different > things; Weight, and explosive power. Also payload includes crew, > ammo, and fuel as well as the bombs. > > A 22,000# has the equivalent power of 22,000# of TNT it does not > weigh 22,000#. Actually, the 22,000 lb bomb did weigh 22,000 lb. The weight was intended to aid ground penetration when it was dropped from 20,000 feet or more. Most of the weight was the hardened steel penetrating body. Offset fins spun the bomb as it fell, stabilizing it and allowing it to attain super-sonic speeds. Explosive payload was approximately 9,000 lb of Torpex. When it hit the ground, it just kept right on going. The idea was it'd punch down 100 ft into the ground before it exploded and shock waves would shake apart the foundations of whatever it landed near. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Which is correct, but the B-17 didn't either, it's range was quite restricted with an 8,000lb load. Interestingly, the RAF used stripped B-24's in the BMI theater, and carried a 12,000lb load some 1,400 miles in one case. Note of course that the return fuel numbers are also much smaller, since you're short all those bombs, making your fuel numbers much less. And operational ranges are two-way typically. -Adam Bob Blakely wrote: > Yes, but I assume they didn't take that load all the way to Berlin and that > they were stripped of nearly everything not absolutely necessary for flight. > > Payload vs fuel is the most common trade off made. For example, the > specification for the Lancaster range with 14,000 pound load was 1,660 > miles. More load = less fuel = fewer miles. > > Maximum takeoff weight: 68,000 lbs > Empty weight: 36,900 lbs > Maximum fuel load: 15,509 lbs > Max payload: 15,591 lbs > > Crew, 7 at average 185 lb with gear: 1,295 lbs > Ammunition for six .303 cal guns: (approx.)300 lbs (25 lbs/can, 2 cans > per gun.) > Payload, Less bombs: 1,595 lbs > Available bomb load:13,996 lbs (approx. the > 14,000 lbs specified.) > > Miles per lb of fuel (approx.) 1,660/15,509 = 0.107 miles / lb. > > for a maximum bomb load of 22,000 lbs we have: >68,000 lbs, Maximum takeoff weight. >36,900 lbs, Empty weight. >22,000 lbs, Bomb weight. > 555 lbs, Crew dropped to 3 > 0 lbs, No gun ammunition. > 8,545 lbs, Left for fuel. > Equals: 915 miles range! More if stripped of guns and everything else > not necessary for flight. > > Range equals one way. > > This is all at cruse speed and altitude. > Less range at max speed to reduce warning. > Less at higher altitude to eliminate all but the best fighters. > > Real range is two way plus perhaps near an hour flying time for trouble. > > Regards, > Bob... > > "Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection." > -Jean Luc Godard > > - Original Message - > From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> Bob Blakely wrote: >>> From: http://www.warbirdalley.com/ >>> >>> B-17G, 17,600 pounds of bombs. >>> Lancaster Mk I, Fourteen 1,000 pound bombs. >>> B-24, 12,800 lb. maximum bomb load >>> >>> Bomb load could be traded for ceiling and/or range with all these. For >>> example, B-17 typically flew with 6000 pounds of bombs to gain range and >>> altitude. On a clear day, the B-17 could be quite accurate from 30,000 >>> ft. >>> >>> Gotta compare them operating under the same conditions. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bob... >> Neither the B-17 nor the B-24 ever operated with bombloads greater than >> 8000lbs, their max loads were very theoretical. The Lancaster B1 Special >> dropped 41 22,000lb bombs during operational missions in 1945. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Actually, you've got it backwards. The 22,000lb bomb weighed 22,000lb, but actually had much less explosive power (which is why the current USAF MOAB can claim to be the most powerful conventional bomb ever deployed, despiet weighing 1000lb less than the Grand Slam, but had 18,700lb of explosive (with a yield of 11 tons of TNT) to the Grand Slam's 9135lb of explosive (Can't find yield numbers). WW2 1000lb bombs yeilded about 250lb of TNT. The current US Mk83 1000lb bomb has a warhead of 385lbs of explosive. -Adam graywolf wrote: > Ya, but you guys have to remember you are talking two different things; > Weight, > and explosive power. Also payload includes crew, ammo, and fuel as well as > the > bombs. > > A 22,000# has the equivalent power of 22,000# of TNT it does not weigh > 22,000#. > Just as a 5 megaton atomic bomb does not weight 5,000,000 tons. Now wouldn't > that take some airplane to lift? A 6000 pound load of bombs was probably > about > 24 1000# bombs (I am too lazy to check on the exact numbers but I seem to > recall > that a WWII 1000# bomb weighted abut 250#). > > > Adam Maas wrote: >> Bob Blakely wrote: >>> From: http://www.warbirdalley.com/ >>> >>> B-17G, 17,600 pounds of bombs. >>> Lancaster Mk I, Fourteen 1,000 pound bombs. >>> B-24, 12,800 lb. maximum bomb load >>> >>> Bomb load could be traded for ceiling and/or range with all these. For >>> example, B-17 typically flew with 6000 pounds of bombs to gain range and >>> altitude. On a clear day, the B-17 could be quite accurate from 30,000 ft. >>> >>> Gotta compare them operating under the same conditions. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bob... >> Neither the B-17 nor the B-24 ever operated with bombloads greater than >> 8000lbs, their max loads were very theoretical. The Lancaster B1 Special >> dropped 41 22,000lb bombs during operational missions in 1945. >> >> -Adam >> >> > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
From: "Bob Blakely" > From: http://www.warbirdalley.com/ > > B-17G, 17,600 pounds of bombs. > Lancaster Mk I, Fourteen 1,000 pound bombs. > B-24, 12,800 lb. maximum bomb load > > Bomb load could be traded for ceiling and/or range with all these. > For example, B-17 typically flew with 6000 pounds of bombs to gain > range and altitude. On a clear day, the B-17 could be quite accurate > from 30,000 ft. > > Gotta compare them operating under the same conditions. Why? They didn't operate under the same conditions. The Brits mostly flew the Lancaster on medium altitude night raids and the Yanks flew the B-17 as a high altitude day bomber. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
From: "P. J. Alling" > They've changed their name to the Commemorative Air Force, > (Confederate is so Politically Incorrect). Might have something to do with so many of them old war-birds being owned by people who don't owe allegiance to the old confederacy. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
On 10/24/07, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, the B-25 only had 28 cylinders, while the Lancaster had 48. But it > always > seemed that the radials sort of rumbled while the v-12's sort of snarled. The > one that always sent shivers up my spine was the Beech 18 (C-45) throttled > back > with the 9 cyl P&W R-985 engines slightly out of sync. I'd have loved to have heard a B17 at full throttle. Chances of that are pretty slim these days... BTW, I was wrong about the B25 being the only multi-engined radial I've ever heard. I've heard (and flown on!) a DC3. D'oh! cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Ya, but you guys have to remember you are talking two different things; Weight, and explosive power. Also payload includes crew, ammo, and fuel as well as the bombs. A 22,000# has the equivalent power of 22,000# of TNT it does not weigh 22,000#. Just as a 5 megaton atomic bomb does not weight 5,000,000 tons. Now wouldn't that take some airplane to lift? A 6000 pound load of bombs was probably about 24 1000# bombs (I am too lazy to check on the exact numbers but I seem to recall that a WWII 1000# bomb weighted abut 250#). Adam Maas wrote: > Bob Blakely wrote: >> From: http://www.warbirdalley.com/ >> >> B-17G, 17,600 pounds of bombs. >> Lancaster Mk I, Fourteen 1,000 pound bombs. >> B-24, 12,800 lb. maximum bomb load >> >> Bomb load could be traded for ceiling and/or range with all these. For >> example, B-17 typically flew with 6000 pounds of bombs to gain range and >> altitude. On a clear day, the B-17 could be quite accurate from 30,000 ft. >> >> Gotta compare them operating under the same conditions. >> >> Regards, >> Bob... > > Neither the B-17 nor the B-24 ever operated with bombloads greater than > 8000lbs, their max loads were very theoretical. The Lancaster B1 Special > dropped 41 22,000lb bombs during operational missions in 1945. > > -Adam > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Yes, but I assume they didn't take that load all the way to Berlin and that they were stripped of nearly everything not absolutely necessary for flight. Payload vs fuel is the most common trade off made. For example, the specification for the Lancaster range with 14,000 pound load was 1,660 miles. More load = less fuel = fewer miles. Maximum takeoff weight: 68,000 lbs Empty weight: 36,900 lbs Maximum fuel load: 15,509 lbs Max payload: 15,591 lbs Crew, 7 at average 185 lb with gear: 1,295 lbs Ammunition for six .303 cal guns: (approx.)300 lbs (25 lbs/can, 2 cans per gun.) Payload, Less bombs: 1,595 lbs Available bomb load:13,996 lbs (approx. the 14,000 lbs specified.) Miles per lb of fuel (approx.) 1,660/15,509 = 0.107 miles / lb. for a maximum bomb load of 22,000 lbs we have: 68,000 lbs, Maximum takeoff weight. 36,900 lbs, Empty weight. 22,000 lbs, Bomb weight. 555 lbs, Crew dropped to 3 0 lbs, No gun ammunition. 8,545 lbs, Left for fuel. Equals: 915 miles range! More if stripped of guns and everything else not necessary for flight. Range equals one way. This is all at cruse speed and altitude. Less range at max speed to reduce warning. Less at higher altitude to eliminate all but the best fighters. Real range is two way plus perhaps near an hour flying time for trouble. Regards, Bob... "Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection." -Jean Luc Godard - Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Bob Blakely wrote: >> From: http://www.warbirdalley.com/ >> >> B-17G, 17,600 pounds of bombs. >> Lancaster Mk I, Fourteen 1,000 pound bombs. >> B-24, 12,800 lb. maximum bomb load >> >> Bomb load could be traded for ceiling and/or range with all these. For >> example, B-17 typically flew with 6000 pounds of bombs to gain range and >> altitude. On a clear day, the B-17 could be quite accurate from 30,000 >> ft. >> >> Gotta compare them operating under the same conditions. >> >> Regards, >> Bob... > > Neither the B-17 nor the B-24 ever operated with bombloads greater than > 8000lbs, their max loads were very theoretical. The Lancaster B1 Special > dropped 41 22,000lb bombs during operational missions in 1945. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Well, the B-25 only had 28 cylinders, while the Lancaster had 48. But it always seemed that the radials sort of rumbled while the v-12's sort of snarled. The one that always sent shivers up my spine was the Beech 18 (C-45) throttled back with the 9 cyl P&W R-985 engines slightly out of sync. frank theriault wrote: > > You're right, it does sound great, but there's something about radial > engines that turns my crank. I've heard Corsairs, which are > incredibly loud, but the only multi-engined radials I've ever heard is > a B25 Mitchell. Even with only two engines, IMHO they sound better > than the four Merlins in the Lanc! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Adam Maas wrote: > Bob Blakely wrote: >> From: http://www.warbirdalley.com/ >> >> B-17G, 17,600 pounds of bombs. >> Lancaster Mk I, Fourteen 1,000 pound bombs. >> B-24, 12,800 lb. maximum bomb load >> >> Bomb load could be traded for ceiling and/or range with all these. For >> example, B-17 typically flew with 6000 pounds of bombs to gain range and >> altitude. On a clear day, the B-17 could be quite accurate from 30,000 ft. >> >> Gotta compare them operating under the same conditions. >> >> Regards, >> Bob... > > Neither the B-17 nor the B-24 ever operated with bombloads greater than > 8000lbs, their max loads were very theoretical. The Lancaster B1 Special > dropped 41 22,000lb bombs during operational missions in 1945. > > -Adam > > yeah but my dad could beat up your dad! -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Bob Blakely wrote: > From: http://www.warbirdalley.com/ > > B-17G, 17,600 pounds of bombs. > Lancaster Mk I, Fourteen 1,000 pound bombs. > B-24, 12,800 lb. maximum bomb load > > Bomb load could be traded for ceiling and/or range with all these. For > example, B-17 typically flew with 6000 pounds of bombs to gain range and > altitude. On a clear day, the B-17 could be quite accurate from 30,000 ft. > > Gotta compare them operating under the same conditions. > > Regards, > Bob... Neither the B-17 nor the B-24 ever operated with bombloads greater than 8000lbs, their max loads were very theoretical. The Lancaster B1 Special dropped 41 22,000lb bombs during operational missions in 1945. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
From: http://www.warbirdalley.com/ B-17G, 17,600 pounds of bombs. Lancaster Mk I, Fourteen 1,000 pound bombs. B-24, 12,800 lb. maximum bomb load Bomb load could be traded for ceiling and/or range with all these. For example, B-17 typically flew with 6000 pounds of bombs to gain range and altitude. On a clear day, the B-17 could be quite accurate from 30,000 ft. Gotta compare them operating under the same conditions. Regards, Bob... "Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection." -Jean Luc Godard - Original Message - From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Small but effective. I think it has three or four times the payload >> capacity of the B17. No armour except for the cockpit > > The Lancaster could (when stripped down) carry as much as a 22,000lb bomb. > That was about three times the payload of a B17. > > To put thing in perspective - modern strike fighters such as the F-16 or > the Eurofighter have a payload of 14,000lb or so - something like 80% of > the > normal payload of an unmodified Lancaster, or twice what a B17 could > carry. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
On 10/23/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you want a great sounding bird, very little beats a Lancaster, with > it's 4 Merlins. > > We get it over Toronto on a regular basis during Airshow season. Like you, I've seen and heard that Lanc on a regular basis. IIRC, it was built in Canada @ AV Roe just at the end of the war, but never got shipped for active duty. Did maritime reconnaissance work for a time before being mothballed and then restored. You're right, it does sound great, but there's something about radial engines that turns my crank. I've heard Corsairs, which are incredibly loud, but the only multi-engined radials I've ever heard is a B25 Mitchell. Even with only two engines, IMHO they sound better than the four Merlins in the Lanc! cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
John Francis wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 06:53:13PM +0100, mike wilson wrote: >> Adam Maas wrote: >>> Doug Franklin wrote: >>> Adam Maas wrote: > If you want a great sounding bird, very little beats a Lancaster, with > it's 4 Merlins. I've never been near a running Lanc, though I've seen them on static display several times. I have had a B-17 and B-24 go overhead at around 1,000 feet. Heard them coming and going for _miles_. Nothing really sounds like a four-piston-engined bird. >>> >>> There's only 2 flying Lanc's, 1 in the UK and one here in Canada, based >>> out of Hamilton, about an hour west of Toronto. A beautiful bird, but >>> small by todays standards. >> Small but effective. I think it has three or four times the payload >> capacity of the B17. No armour except for the cockpit > > The Lancaster could (when stripped down) carry as much as a 22,000lb bomb. > That was about three times the payload of a B17. > > To put thing in perspective - modern strike fighters such as the F-16 or > the Eurofighter have a payload of 14,000lb or so - something like 80% of the > normal payload of an unmodified Lancaster, or twice what a B17 could carry. > > To put it even more in perspective, the B-52H has a max payload of 70,000lbs, and the B-1B holds 75,000lbs internally and can carry another 59,000lbs on pylons (but the START 1 treaty prevents the use of external stores on the B-1B). The B-2 is a lightweight, topping out at 40,000lbs. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
John Francis wrote: >The Lancaster could (when stripped down) carry as much as a >22,000lb bomb. Ah yes, the "earthquake" bomb. They used them to bring down bridges: It didn't have to hit the bridge, just strike nearby where the shock waves from the explosion (I believe they were fused to go off after impact, underground) would literally shake the bridge down. They had to remove the bob bay doors to fit those bombs, I htink. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 06:53:13PM +0100, mike wilson wrote: > Adam Maas wrote: > > Doug Franklin wrote: > > > >>Adam Maas wrote: > >> > >> > >>>If you want a great sounding bird, very little beats a Lancaster, with > >>>it's 4 Merlins. > >> > >>I've never been near a running Lanc, though I've seen them on static > >>display several times. I have had a B-17 and B-24 go overhead at around > >>1,000 feet. Heard them coming and going for _miles_. Nothing really > >>sounds like a four-piston-engined bird. > >> > > > > > > There's only 2 flying Lanc's, 1 in the UK and one here in Canada, based > > out of Hamilton, about an hour west of Toronto. A beautiful bird, but > > small by todays standards. > > Small but effective. I think it has three or four times the payload > capacity of the B17. No armour except for the cockpit The Lancaster could (when stripped down) carry as much as a 22,000lb bomb. That was about three times the payload of a B17. To put thing in perspective - modern strike fighters such as the F-16 or the Eurofighter have a payload of 14,000lb or so - something like 80% of the normal payload of an unmodified Lancaster, or twice what a B17 could carry. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Adam Maas wrote: > Doug Franklin wrote: > >>Adam Maas wrote: >> >> >>>If you want a great sounding bird, very little beats a Lancaster, with >>>it's 4 Merlins. >> >>I've never been near a running Lanc, though I've seen them on static >>display several times. I have had a B-17 and B-24 go overhead at around >>1,000 feet. Heard them coming and going for _miles_. Nothing really >>sounds like a four-piston-engined bird. >> > > > There's only 2 flying Lanc's, 1 in the UK and one here in Canada, based > out of Hamilton, about an hour west of Toronto. A beautiful bird, but > small by todays standards. Small but effective. I think it has three or four times the payload capacity of the B17. No armour except for the cockpit -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
John Francis wrote: > I don't believe you're right. The Collings Foundation have a B-17, > B-24 and B-25 in their "Wings of Freedom" flight, and they claim there > are currently fourteen B-17s in flyable condition in the USA. The B-24, > though, is apparently the only one flying. It's entirely possible I'm confusing them. :-) -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
John Francis wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:35:07AM -0400, Doug Franklin wrote: >> Adam Maas wrote: >> >>> There's only 2 flying Lanc's, 1 in the UK and one here in Canada, based >>> out of Hamilton, about an hour west of Toronto. A beautiful bird, but >>> small by todays standards. >> Yeah, I think there's only one Flying Fortress (B-17) left flying, in >> the Confederate Air Force of all places. IIRC, their B-24 crashed a >> couple of years ago and was a total loss. > > I don't believe you're right. The Collings Foundation have a B-17, > B-24 and B-25 in their "Wings of Freedom" flight, and they claim there > are currently fourteen B-17s in flyable condition in the USA. The B-24, > though, is apparently the only one flying. > yeah, there's a number of B-17's in flying condition. The B-24's, Lanc's and B-29's are rare though. B-17's were rather popular as firebombers in the 60's and 70's, which kept a number of them in commercial service long past the demise of the other Heavies. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:35:07AM -0400, Doug Franklin wrote: > Adam Maas wrote: > > > There's only 2 flying Lanc's, 1 in the UK and one here in Canada, based > > out of Hamilton, about an hour west of Toronto. A beautiful bird, but > > small by todays standards. > > Yeah, I think there's only one Flying Fortress (B-17) left flying, in > the Confederate Air Force of all places. IIRC, their B-24 crashed a > couple of years ago and was a total loss. I don't believe you're right. The Collings Foundation have a B-17, B-24 and B-25 in their "Wings of Freedom" flight, and they claim there are currently fourteen B-17s in flyable condition in the USA. The B-24, though, is apparently the only one flying. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
P. J. Alling wrote: > They've changed their name to the Commemorative Air Force, (Confederate > is so Politically Incorrect). Yeah, well, I'm not all that Politically Correct. ;-> -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
They've changed their name to the Commemorative Air Force, (Confederate is so Politically Incorrect). Doug Franklin wrote: > Adam Maas wrote: > > >> There's only 2 flying Lanc's, 1 in the UK and one here in Canada, based >> out of Hamilton, about an hour west of Toronto. A beautiful bird, but >> small by todays standards. >> > > Yeah, I think there's only one Flying Fortress (B-17) left flying, in > the Confederate Air Force of all places. IIRC, their B-24 crashed a > couple of years ago and was a total loss. > > -- The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team. -- P. J. O'Roark -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Adam Maas wrote: > There's only 2 flying Lanc's, 1 in the UK and one here in Canada, based > out of Hamilton, about an hour west of Toronto. A beautiful bird, but > small by todays standards. Yeah, I think there's only one Flying Fortress (B-17) left flying, in the Confederate Air Force of all places. IIRC, their B-24 crashed a couple of years ago and was a total loss. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
- Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" Subject: Re: Starfighters & Co. > If you want a great sounding bird, very little beats a Lancaster, with > it's 4 Merlins. > > We get it over Toronto on a regular basis during Airshow season. The Canadian based Lancaster made an appearance in Regina many years ago. A friend and I decided we wanted to get some pictures of it landing so we waited for the door to the secure area to open and snuck through it. Of course the RCMP came and hauled our sorry asses away from the side of the runway, but they were very nice and ushered us up to the roof area of the control tower and allowed us to set up and work there. Nice plane, but I was surprised by how small it was. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Doug Franklin wrote: > Adam Maas wrote: > >> If you want a great sounding bird, very little beats a Lancaster, with >> it's 4 Merlins. > > I've never been near a running Lanc, though I've seen them on static > display several times. I have had a B-17 and B-24 go overhead at around > 1,000 feet. Heard them coming and going for _miles_. Nothing really > sounds like a four-piston-engined bird. > There's only 2 flying Lanc's, 1 in the UK and one here in Canada, based out of Hamilton, about an hour west of Toronto. A beautiful bird, but small by todays standards. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Adam Maas wrote: > If you want a great sounding bird, very little beats a Lancaster, with > it's 4 Merlins. I've never been near a running Lanc, though I've seen them on static display several times. I have had a B-17 and B-24 go overhead at around 1,000 feet. Heard them coming and going for _miles_. Nothing really sounds like a four-piston-engined bird. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Doug Franklin wrote: > mike wilson wrote: > >> Still not as nice (for me) as the >> inline(ish) Merlin, with the overlaying supercharger whine. > > Might be the same for me if'n I'd ever had three P-51s zoom me in V > formation at "mess up my hair" altitude. :-) > If you want a great sounding bird, very little beats a Lancaster, with it's 4 Merlins. We get it over Toronto on a regular basis during Airshow season. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
mike wilson wrote: > Still not as nice (for me) as the > inline(ish) Merlin, with the overlaying supercharger whine. Might be the same for me if'n I'd ever had three P-51s zoom me in V formation at "mess up my hair" altitude. :-) -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Doug Franklin wrote: > mike wilson wrote: > > >>BTW, wind your sound up and listen to the Merlin at full blast here. Don't >>play the Corsair one at the top, it will make you feel ill. >>http://www.aviationshoppe.com/Sounds1.html > > > There used to be a tractor pull "car" here in the US that had either > five or seven Merlins fitted. He claimed close to 10,000 HP, IIRC. > They were /not/ stock-fitment Merlins. :-) > > I love the sound of the Wright radials, like the one in the Corsair. At > an air show when I was a kid, a "flight" of three Corsairs buzzed the > crowd at "mess up our hair" altitude and it was just stupendous, and > nearly stupefying. > The sound I was referring to was the radial startup which, for some reason, the page has as the main sound. The full-throated roar version is there but you have to look for it. Still not as nice (for me) as the inline(ish) Merlin, with the overlaying supercharger whine. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co. (was: Completely and totally OT: Politics)
I don't know what it is but it looks like it has RR Merlin engine. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
On Oct 20, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Dario Bonazza wrote: > So here's the answer: > http://www.dariobonazza.com/public/Fiat_G59.jpg > > It's a 1948 Fiat G59, a derivative of the WWII-era G55 with a > Merlin engine. > In Italy, it was only used as a trainer (hence the 2-seat cockpit), > while a > few were also built with as single-seater fighters for other armed > forces. Very pretty! Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Of course, I missed the .com: www.dariobonazza.com/public/Fiat_G59.jpg Dario - Original Message - From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 10:44 PM Subject: Re: Starfighters & Co. > So here's the answer: > www.dariobonazza/public/Fiat_G59.jpg > > It's a 1948 Fiat G59, a derivative of the WWII-era G55 with a Merlin > engine. > In Italy, it was only used as a trainer (hence the 2-seat cockpit), while > a > few were also built with as single-seater fighters for other armed forces. > > Thanks to all those trying to guess the warbird. > > Dario > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
So here's the answer: www.dariobonazza/public/Fiat_G59.jpg It's a 1948 Fiat G59, a derivative of the WWII-era G55 with a Merlin engine. In Italy, it was only used as a trainer (hence the 2-seat cockpit), while a few were also built with as single-seater fighters for other armed forces. Thanks to all those trying to guess the warbird. Dario -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co. (was: Completely and totally OT: Politics)
> > And now, let's discuss WWII planes with a quiz for warbird buffs > out there. > Please take a look at www.dariobonazza.com/public/KGP03047.jpg > What's that? > > Ciao, > > Dario > Is it a Yak-9? Evan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
mike wilson wrote: > BTW, wind your sound up and listen to the Merlin at full blast here. Don't > play the Corsair one at the top, it will make you feel ill. > http://www.aviationshoppe.com/Sounds1.html There used to be a tractor pull "car" here in the US that had either five or seven Merlins fitted. He claimed close to 10,000 HP, IIRC. They were /not/ stock-fitment Merlins. :-) I love the sound of the Wright radials, like the one in the Corsair. At an air show when I was a kid, a "flight" of three Corsairs buzzed the crowd at "mess up our hair" altitude and it was just stupendous, and nearly stupefying. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
I would have guessed P51 but apparently that's not it. I'd never heard of the Hispano Aviacion HA 1112 Buchon but I doubt that's it. The wheels retract away from the fuselage in the photo you posted whereas in Dario's photo they retract towards the fuselage. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/brianwalters Quoting mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Hispano Aviacion HA 1112 Buchon > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hispano_Aviaci%C3%B3n_Ha_1112_Buchon.jpeg > > BTW, wind your sound up and listen to the Merlin at full blast > here. Don't play the Corsair one at the top, it will make you feel > ill. > http://www.aviationshoppe.com/Sounds1.html > > > -- Free pop3 email with a spam filter. http://www.bluebottle.com/tag/5 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Starfighters & Co.
From: "Dario Bonazza" > And now, let's discuss WWII planes with a quiz for warbird buffs out there. > Please take a look at www.dariobonazza.com/public/KGP03047.jpg > What's that? P-51B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
It looks a lot like the front end of a P51 but a lot of planes noses looked a lot like that. Dario Bonazza wrote: > mike wilson wrote: > > >>> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Date: 2007/10/18 Thu PM 08:14:36 GMT >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: Re: Completely and totally OT: Politics >>> >>> Well, Canada did buy a bunch of F-104's. Too bad ours were low-level nuke >>> ground attack birds (Absolutely no air-to-air capability due to lacking a >>> gun prior to 1972 and a dedicated ground-attack radar instead of the >>> normal air-to-air set). We shoulda bought F-105 thuds instead. >>> >>> The CF-104 killed a lot of Canadians. >>> >> Not to mention the Germans and Americans. Should have gone for the EE >> Lightning. >> > > For some reasons, the Italian pilots had a reputation of being better than > the others in managing the Starfighter, including the F104G and the later > version F104S developed and built by Aeritalia, which remained in service > till 2004 (!!!). > Italy had a lower accident rate and a lower number of dead pilots among > those flying the 'spillone' (big pin) than the other countries. > > And now, let's discuss WWII planes with a quiz for warbird buffs out there. > Please take a look at www.dariobonazza.com/public/KGP03047.jpg > What's that? > > Ciao, > > Dario > > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co. (was: Completely and totally OT: Politics)
No. Dario - Original Message - From: "Bong Manayon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 3:05 PM Subject: Re: Starfighters & Co. (was: Completely and totally OT: Politics) >I thought it was half of a P-82 Twin Mustang, but my guess its one of > those Cavalier Mustangs (Mustang II? Piper Enforcer?) ... > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Yes, it's a Merlin. No, it's neither e Messerschmitt nor another plane developed from a ME109. Dario - Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 2:48 PM Subject: Re: Starfighters & Co. > Doug Franklin wrote: >> Dario Bonazza wrote: >> >>> And now, let's discuss WWII planes with a quiz for warbird buffs out >>> there. >>> Please take a look at www.dariobonazza.com/public/KGP03047.jpg >>> What's that? >> >> Nose of an early P-51 Mustang? Or maybe a Hawker Hurricane? >> > > Neither. Although it's almost assuredly got a Merlin upfront. Maybe one > of those wierd Merlin/ME109 crosses? > > -Adam > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
> > From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2007/10/19 Fri PM 12:48:10 GMT > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Starfighters & Co. > > Doug Franklin wrote: > > Dario Bonazza wrote: > > > >> And now, let's discuss WWII planes with a quiz for warbird buffs out there. > >> Please take a look at www.dariobonazza.com/public/KGP03047.jpg > >> What's that? > > > > Nose of an early P-51 Mustang? Or maybe a Hawker Hurricane? > > > > Neither. Although it's almost assuredly got a Merlin upfront. Maybe one > of those wierd Merlin/ME109 crosses? > > Hispano Aviacion HA 1112 Buchon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hispano_Aviaci%C3%B3n_Ha_1112_Buchon.jpeg BTW, wind your sound up and listen to the Merlin at full blast here. Don't play the Corsair one at the top, it will make you feel ill. http://www.aviationshoppe.com/Sounds1.html - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co. (was: Completely and totally OT: Politics)
I thought it was half of a P-82 Twin Mustang, but my guess its one of those Cavalier Mustangs (Mustang II? Piper Enforcer?) ... On 10/19/07, Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mike wilson wrote: > > > Civilianised P51 Mustang? > > Nope. You have another chance, as I wrote WWII when it's actually post-WWII. > > Dario > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Bong Manayon http://www.bong.uni.cc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Doug Franklin wrote: > Dario Bonazza wrote: > >> And now, let's discuss WWII planes with a quiz for warbird buffs out there. >> Please take a look at www.dariobonazza.com/public/KGP03047.jpg >> What's that? > > Nose of an early P-51 Mustang? Or maybe a Hawker Hurricane? > Neither. Although it's almost assuredly got a Merlin upfront. Maybe one of those wierd Merlin/ME109 crosses? -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Dario Bonazza wrote: > And now, let's discuss WWII planes with a quiz for warbird buffs out there. > Please take a look at www.dariobonazza.com/public/KGP03047.jpg > What's that? Nose of an early P-51 Mustang? Or maybe a Hawker Hurricane? -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co.
Dario Bonazza wrote: > mike wilson wrote: > >>> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Date: 2007/10/18 Thu PM 08:14:36 GMT >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: Re: Completely and totally OT: Politics >>> >>> Well, Canada did buy a bunch of F-104's. Too bad ours were low-level nuke >>> ground attack birds (Absolutely no air-to-air capability due to lacking a >>> gun prior to 1972 and a dedicated ground-attack radar instead of the >>> normal air-to-air set). We shoulda bought F-105 thuds instead. >>> >>> The CF-104 killed a lot of Canadians. >> Not to mention the Germans and Americans. Should have gone for the EE >> Lightning. > > For some reasons, the Italian pilots had a reputation of being better than > the others in managing the Starfighter, including the F104G and the later > version F104S developed and built by Aeritalia, which remained in service > till 2004 (!!!). > Italy had a lower accident rate and a lower number of dead pilots among > those flying the 'spillone' (big pin) than the other countries. > > And now, let's discuss WWII planes with a quiz for warbird buffs out there. > Please take a look at www.dariobonazza.com/public/KGP03047.jpg > What's that? > > Ciao, > > Dario > > Pretty simple actually, the Italians bought late and didn't do much low-level stuff. Pushing the 104 outside of its design envelope is what killed so many German and Canadian pilots. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co. (was: Completely and totally OT: Politics)
mike wilson wrote: > Civilianised P51 Mustang? Nope. You have another chance, as I wrote WWII when it's actually post-WWII. Dario -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co. (was: Completely and totally OT: Politics)
> > From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2007/10/19 Fri AM 10:01:43 GMT > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Subject: Starfighters & Co. (was: Completely and totally OT: Politics) > > mike wilson wrote: > > >> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Date: 2007/10/18 Thu PM 08:14:36 GMT > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> Subject: Re: Completely and totally OT: Politics > >> > >> Well, Canada did buy a bunch of F-104's. Too bad ours were low-level nuke > >> ground attack birds (Absolutely no air-to-air capability due to lacking a > >> gun prior to 1972 and a dedicated ground-attack radar instead of the > >> normal air-to-air set). We shoulda bought F-105 thuds instead. > >> > >> The CF-104 killed a lot of Canadians. > > > > Not to mention the Germans and Americans. Should have gone for the EE > > Lightning. > > For some reasons, the Italian pilots had a reputation of being better than > the others in managing the Starfighter, including the F104G and the later > version F104S developed and built by Aeritalia, which remained in service > till 2004 (!!!). > Italy had a lower accident rate and a lower number of dead pilots among > those flying the 'spillone' (big pin) than the other countries. Who better than the Italians to "drive it right onto the runway"? 8-) > > And now, let's discuss WWII planes with a quiz for warbird buffs out there. > Please take a look at www.dariobonazza.com/public/KGP03047.jpg > What's that? Civilianised P51 Mustang? - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Starfighters & Co. (was: Completely and totally OT: Politics)
Err... let's better say post-WWII. Dario - Original Message - From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 12:01 PM Subject: Starfighters & Co. (was: Completely and totally OT: Politics) > mike wilson wrote: > >>> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Date: 2007/10/18 Thu PM 08:14:36 GMT >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: Re: Completely and totally OT: Politics >>> >>> Well, Canada did buy a bunch of F-104's. Too bad ours were low-level >>> nuke >>> ground attack birds (Absolutely no air-to-air capability due to lacking >>> a >>> gun prior to 1972 and a dedicated ground-attack radar instead of the >>> normal air-to-air set). We shoulda bought F-105 thuds instead. >>> >>> The CF-104 killed a lot of Canadians. >> >> Not to mention the Germans and Americans. Should have gone for the EE >> Lightning. > > For some reasons, the Italian pilots had a reputation of being better than > the others in managing the Starfighter, including the F104G and the later > version F104S developed and built by Aeritalia, which remained in service > till 2004 (!!!). > Italy had a lower accident rate and a lower number of dead pilots among > those flying the 'spillone' (big pin) than the other countries. > > And now, let's discuss WWII planes with a quiz for warbird buffs out > there. > Please take a look at www.dariobonazza.com/public/KGP03047.jpg > What's that? > > Ciao, > > Dario > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Starfighters & Co. (was: Completely and totally OT: Politics)
mike wilson wrote: >> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: 2007/10/18 Thu PM 08:14:36 GMT >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Completely and totally OT: Politics >> >> Well, Canada did buy a bunch of F-104's. Too bad ours were low-level nuke >> ground attack birds (Absolutely no air-to-air capability due to lacking a >> gun prior to 1972 and a dedicated ground-attack radar instead of the >> normal air-to-air set). We shoulda bought F-105 thuds instead. >> >> The CF-104 killed a lot of Canadians. > > Not to mention the Germans and Americans. Should have gone for the EE > Lightning. For some reasons, the Italian pilots had a reputation of being better than the others in managing the Starfighter, including the F104G and the later version F104S developed and built by Aeritalia, which remained in service till 2004 (!!!). Italy had a lower accident rate and a lower number of dead pilots among those flying the 'spillone' (big pin) than the other countries. And now, let's discuss WWII planes with a quiz for warbird buffs out there. Please take a look at www.dariobonazza.com/public/KGP03047.jpg What's that? Ciao, Dario -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
